scf_review_window_assessment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that this is a write operation, requires an editor role, and that not_reviewed revokes the review. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The operation, role, allowed values, and sibling pointer are all conveyed economically.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter write tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides action, role, accepted values, and the key sibling distinction. It could mention success/error behavior, but an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the review_status values and the revoke meaning, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for ewa_id, org_id, or review_notes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the acceptance review of a windowed assessment', and enumerates the exact status values. It also names the sibling scf_review_window_assessment_verdict, distinguishing this mutation tool from the verdict-related tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly marks the operation as a write requiring an editor role and points to the sibling scf_review_window_assessment_verdict for the verdict itself. However, it does not explicitly exclude related read or trigger tools like scf_get_window_assessment or scf_trigger_window_assessment.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.